Recent Publications
October-November 2009
Králová, Jana, Zuzana Jettmarová (eds). 2008. Tradition versus modernity. From the classif period of the
A collective volume written in English to present to the international
TS community a picture of Czech and Slovak translation theory and perhaps to
correct some misrepresentations. In their introduction, the two editors point
out in particular that Levý, Popovič
and Miko’s “theories and methodologies focused on
phenomenology and perception” and has s socio-cultural basis, and that “Czech structuralists, already in the Classical period, perceived
translation as an integral component of the receiving culture and addressed
many issues that were to attract interest in Translation Studies only several
decades later…” (p.10).
Jettmarová, Zuzana. Czech and Slovak translation theories: the lesser known traditions.
p.15-46.
Levý, Jiří. The process of creation of a work of literature and its
reception. p.47-88.
Králová, Jana. Proper names in intercultural communication: from prescription to
description. p.89-100.
Hoffmannová, Jana. The reproduction of one’s own speech or the speech of others: from L. Doležel to contemporary communication and corpus research.
p.101-123.
Kolmanová, Simona. Czech plagiaries and
adaptations of Hungarian literature from the 1860s: a Hungarian studies
perspective on the translation theory of Jiří Levý. p.125-135.
Uličný, Miloslav. Translations of Shakespeare’s sonnets into Czech and Spanish.
p.137-147.
Bečvářová, Martina. Translations of
Kocijančič Pokorn,
Nike. (Post)communist censorship in translation – religion
as a taboo. p.175-185.
* *
*
From Mutatis Mutandis (http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/mutatismutandis)
An online translation journal based at Universidad de Antioquia in
Córtez, José. 2009. Nuevas metodologías en la enseñanza de la traducción: Une
perspectiva cognitiva. Mutatis Mutandis
2:2.282-294.
* The author reports on
an experiment with students translating with and without systematic implementation
of ‘Translation Previous Protocol’, an analysis of the source text and some
research before its translation.
Nord, Christiane. 2009. El funcionalismo en la enseñanza de la traducción. Mutatis Mutandis 2:2.209-243.
* A comprehensive,
clearly and pleasantly written overview of the principles of functionalism and
its use in the classroom, with many examples. Note inter alia that: Nord
acknowledges that functionalism was developed in translator training
institutions, that it has normative components (p.211), she explains the way
functionalism looks at equivalence and introduces the concept of ‘adequacy’
[not quite the same as Toury’s ‘adequacy’], she refers to various types of
functionalism, including “radical functionalism”. In this paper, functionalism
looks much like a common-sense based analysis of professional translation
situations resulting in classifications which seek to clarify situations and
issues. Surely a useful tool in the classroom. Some similarities
[and compatibility] with ESIT’s interpretive theory in
the general context in which the two theories were developed and in their very
general nature, which does not address specifically technical problems, are striking,
though the foci differ. Just as striking is the fact that the two still ignore
each other in terms of cross-citations. Would it not be interesting to read a
paper by Nord analyzing interpretive theory and by Lederer analyzing skopos
theory?
* *
*
A sample from trans-kom www.trans-kom.eu
Trans-kom, a new online journal, whose editors are Leona
Van Vaerenbergh of Artesis Hogeschool Antwerpen and Klaus Schubert of Universität
Hildesheim, is now at its second year of publication, with three issues out.
Here is a small sample of papers:
Dam-Jensen, Helle & Carmen Heine.
2009. Process Research Methods and Their Application in the Didactics of Text
Production and Translation. Shedding Light on the Use of Research Methods in
the University Classroom. Trans-kom 2 [1] (2009):
1-25.
* This rather long paper
starts out with the attractive idea that process research methods can be
applied as learning-enhancing methods in the classroom. It offers an overview
of research methods in text production research and discusses their advantages
and drawbacks, but little empirical evidence is presented. The prospects of having such evidence in a few years’ time is
attractive. Note a rich and up-to-date list of references at the end of the
paper, including the following PhD work:
[Heine, Carmen. 2008. Modell zur Produktion von Online-Hilfen.
PhD-Afhandling. Aarhus:
Jekat, Susanne J. & Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow. 2008. Language separation in
Translators and Interpreters. trans-kom
1 [1] (2008): 88-104.
* A somewhat disappointing
paper on an interesting topic. The authors discuss language interference mostly
in the framework of linguistic theories and include virtually no input from TS,
and especially from IS where the topic has been discusses extensively, inter
alia by ESIT authors. They report on a basically interesting experiment in
which a translation task was preceded by short activation of either the source
language or the target language, but very little information is given on the
students and on the outcome. (see also another paper
by the same authors on the same subject with more detailed methodological
indications in:
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen &
Susanne Jekat.
2005. Languages in contact: The influence of language
activation and competing language patterns on translation performance. Linguistik online 23, 2/5. 77-92)
Jüngst, Heike Elisabeth. 2008. Dolmetschen für Übersetzer? Ja, bitte! Beobachtungen und Überlegungen. trans-kom 1 [2] (2008): 180-187.
* A general essay explaining that interpreter training
for translation students can help them acquire “soft skills” associated with
interpreting
* Review of a book which discusses the
translation of two Russian films, with comparisons between dubbing, subtitling
and simultaneous interpreting.
* *
*
From
Interpreting 2:2(2009) – this special
issue was guest-edited by Robin Setton.
Papers on conference interpreting will be reviewed in
the next CIRIN Bulletin, due to be posted by
the end of December 2009. The papers listed here are more general or have other
foci than conference interpreting.
Setton, Robin. Interpreting
* A very interesting introductory
analysis.
Lung, Rachel. Perceptions of translating/interpreting in first-century
* A documented
historical investigation, with triangulation through the perspectives of the
emperor, the frontier inspector and the frontier clerk who also served as an
interpreter in dealings between the Han and non-Han Chinese minority tribes
along what was then the Southwestern frontier.
Xiao, Xiaoyan and Yu Ruiling. Survey on sign language interpreting in
* Pioneering work on SL
interpreting in
Leung, Ester & John
Gibbons. Interpreting Cantonese utterance-final particles in
bilingual courtroom discourse. p.190-215.
* Interestingly, an
empirical study of five cases heard in
* *
*
Ehrensberger-Dow, Maureen and Gary
Massey. 2008. Exploring
Translation Competence by Triangulating Empirical Data.
* A report on an
empirical multi-approach experiment on translation with screen recordings and
retrospection with professionals and students. Interesting observations, inter
alia on the importance of self-revision and on the quality of research for
terms in students versus professionals.
* *
*
Bahadir, Şebnem. 2007. Verknüpfungen und
Verschiebungen. Dolmetscherin, Dolmetschforscherin, Dolmetschausbilderin. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
* A very systematic,
interesting set of reflections on the role of interpreters, especially
community interpreters, with input from ethnography and experience-based
introspection, and ideas about training.
* *
*
Lederer, Marianne.
2009. Le sens dessus dessous : herméneutique et traduction. In Cercel, Larisa (ed). Übersetzung und
Hermeneutik. Traduction et herméneutique.
* In this paper, Lederer
explains the similarities and differences between ESIT’s
Interpretive Theory and hermeneutics in TS. She underlines inter alia that
sense is not within the text but constructed by the reader, and points out that
while ordinary readers’ comprehension is often highly biased and subjective,
the translator’s is less so (“la formulation du compris
du traducteur tend à l’objectivité”,
p. 278).